click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Hartford 2, Anthony 2, Moore 2, Borden 1, Hillis 1, Us 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    January 24, 2013
    3:30 - 4:00pm PST  

3:30pm
relationship that need to happen i know that other places have liquor and - >> i - the fact that there bars across the streets and they're the culprits the restaurants won't be. i've thought of of the odor control with the neighbors. odor control between a restaurant and that serves beer and the castro country club we're going to take care of that that >> great i mean, i really recognize it sounds like the castro country club is amazing. i hope that it continues to do
3:31pm
the great things it was done. it's a shame that the permits weren't in place thirty years ago. i understand the need for when you have a need for the building at the current way you have to have revenues that take care of taxes. i know that we're also trying to get rid of a trans sit person so we're glad to have other consistent resources for people. if you're willing to close off the back of the restaurant so
3:32pm
people are not in the backyard that would annoy the neighbors then it sounds like we can just close that off that it would be a project to work for everybody but i want to hear what other commiserations have to say. i am supporting the project >> the first floor i guess the addition to the restaurant i'm okay with the country club kind of legitimization and use. the back seems to be awkward. what is proposed and allowed. i mean leaving that 5 foot space open is awkward it's so small.
3:33pm
its act ward to have this 5 foot space. is that allowed? >> under the planning code section 134 castro street neighborhood commercial district would not require if there the no commercial use on the ground floor so - the 5 foot is like a light well, it goes all the way to the sky and it is provided by the project sponsor. >> what was the building on hartford street what's right there? i couldn't find a picture of that.
3:34pm
>> so i guess we have it. >> it's on page 83 point zero. that shows the 5 feet well deep well >> that's the picture that we're referring to that shows the well? so that property doesn't go up to the property line there's a - but then there's a the building comes out >> if we're to have a dialog we've got to have people come up to the microphone. >> it does have a section of
3:35pm
the building and it shows clearly is relationship of the courtyard of the property behind and it does sit above the proposed outline. >> i i guess my problem is extending the first floor addition people using that second deck are looking through your window. is there the ability to rouse that back area, you know that 6 feet and bring the staircase down to the ground floor and have a more usual backed yard to the up stairs. that gives us some space between the backyard and kind of
3:36pm
eliminate that deck. i realize that would take some area from the restaurant and also the deck that's dedicated to the residence. certainly, if you wish for us to - if i wish for us to ending large the open area on the blow ground floor we could do that but i would argue that it's a less tennessee feet. you understand? i would rather close off the 5 foot court completely and take away the noise of the restaurant
3:37pm
we've just continue to provide a fence at that 5 footpath so no one could walk onto the area >> it puts the deck smack against the hartford street. >> the fence would still be where it's shown today. >> yeah, and that gap there. and you understand that that ground there is pretty much there anyway. so if you're in the castro club by a foot or two you could walk back there. this is a race ground floor here
3:38pm
you see the healthy relationships again we're putting in a - and the upper section in the height of the rear patio it's the one you look at in the photo of the rear building >> the plan shows the existing condition so the rear yard is not that much lower than the height of the proposed addition so the relationship at the rear of the property doesn't change that much. the commission does have the ability to have this extend all the way back. however, the limit is 2 thousand
3:39pm
square feet. so the size of the restaurant does not exceed 2 thousand square feet >> could i say that again. >> the current use of the restaurant and the told her is 2 thousand square feet so this the 5 by 25 foot wide increase so they'd have to make the restaurant smaller somewhere. so just i understand this. back where it that lighted well, is is escalated? could i come that 11 feet, you know, and keep
3:40pm
that filled. i know you wouldn't have windows phone the restaurant in the back but windows on the front >> right now we are at the property line at the property line why not just eliminate the back 5 feet and take the back 5 feet and leave it unescalated. >> because you'd get a back lot that is not - >> i don't know how to make this thing work. >> i think to make sure this is clear you wouldn't escalate that 5 feet. >> and i'm asking this isn't the place to compromise but
3:41pm
maybe we could take this part back here. i'm happy with putting little fence 5 feet back it's going to be a better situation with the - what the neighbors look out on right now they look out on the backyard of the castro country club and a series of out houses we'll call them that for a moment like refrigerators. >> rig >> right.
3:42pm
>> why not go 11 feet to get a more decent size backyard and it redues that area. >> i would say we would be most reluctant but it this is the only way the commission would approve this i would understand. >> and i say let's hear from other commissioners. >> yes as long as your up there are you project sponsors saying that the person who bought this feels that a regular commercial retailer whatever is allowed under the code presently isn't enough to finance the purchase of the property and needs a
3:43pm
restaurant for some reason. >> i think the answer to that is, yes. >> tell me about this solely on speculation. >> i think the commission would approve a restaurant. i hope i'm not putting my foot in my mouth but the nc c has changed and what is now loud in the district has changed. a restaurant can go in and the fact that they're selling beer and wine is okay >> but your seeking something else. >> we're going seeking beer and wine in a restaurant. >> commissioner moore.
3:44pm
>> i'm generally concerned that the budging out of the property line is an issue. when you change the residential area from residential into an in city that at the time it was done has implication because you've got home - you could potentially go all the way out to the property line with or without that line is no effect to me. if you're joining both properties to the north i would significant that we find a line by which the restaurant and the commission indeed wants to
3:45pm
support find a sense of expansion so we could still have a residential building. but if you have - we're not looking at what building type we're trying to ending large so i would like to take a slightly more tighter look at the restaurant and i'm not even sure in 10 or 11 feet is the right li line. and then where the stair ends doesn't scombern me >> i'm supporting the country
3:46pm
club by i want to ask the staff does the stairwell require outside space. >> the second floor rear deck it is divided into two portions the rear portion is required for use. >> it is required. >> yeah, the purpose of the stairwell is to assess that is required. >> and we're sort of talking about the restaurant space i'm going to call it below grade on the backside. so hour the restaurant space goes back doesn't change the second floor backyard is this correct? >> the ground floor is proposed for the rear ex-attention and
3:47pm
that will includes other issues. >> the patio the staff visited the site. >> to me i want to be sensitive to the issues about enjoys. i actually thought this the front of the restaurant might produce more enjoys but i believe it didn't meet the icu it's just allowed. i'm interested in looking at mitigati mitigating noise.
3:48pm
commissioner anthony >> in instances like this we'll look at a planned screen wall or other things that would separate the patio area from the neighbors and that might be the better way to go. i don't know in the other commissioners have ideas about things that could be build there >> we proposed a land escaped - a land escaped fence or boxes at 13 feet in from the - from the property line to - but staff
3:49pm
indicates if he wanted to put fences and planters we have to get zoning approve on that. >> so is the open space - do they need to maintain that open space. the castro private open space just for that unit it's not only the amount but there's dimensional space. so if it the on a deck as it is now on the proposal it would increase up to 10 feet.
3:50pm
it certainly, if the building xeendz to the property line they'll meet all the conditions to the open space. but if we have more of a rear yard like 10 feet that would satisfy the open space. >> i respectfully ask that or agree with commissioner hillis that we'll provide the 11 feet of the backyard, we'll landscape the backyard. we'll still provide the landscape bare between the - the residential backyard and the castro club backyard and that
3:51pm
way it will provide for privacy for the neighbors >> i say if you go it - put the restaurant back 11 feet will leave you enough space for the restaurant. that 11 feet is okay. you don't have toes have a right it. you wouldn't have windows in the back it would be just a residential backyard and wouldn't effect the residents on the street. i think that could work >> question has been proposed by my client would you be satisfied to a glycohad green roof and we'll still put in a
3:52pm
land escaped backyard. >> you won't - if youes have a right and the restaurant is back 11 feet what's in that area? >> anything that might happen there whether it's kitchen or - >> that backyard is below grade it's not useable. >> it's the same level as it is now. we're going back to the restaurant thing >> i'm sorry if you forget that last idea the green roof is just more expensive and it's not worth the thing to do. i say we landscape the backyard
3:53pm
>> then i would move to do that. >> the restaurant is 11 feet there's an 11 foot backyard it's notes evaded but the spiral staircase would be the residential backyard and that would be a landscape to did he - take care of the backyard. >> i'm not really sure what that does in terms of the noise. i don't know about the noise >> well, you don't have a window in the light well. >> the restaurant would have no windows in the backyard and that's fine. that's fine
3:54pm
>> the commissioner could say there's no opening and make that as a condition. >> you couldn't have a window it's below grade. >> there would be nothing that would prevent them in the future that wouldn't be something that the commission would look at again. >> commissioner anthony. >> i'm probably okay with the motion. i don't want to be so restrictive. i've got an area that is owned by homeowners and it would be nice to get some light into the back of there i think more people are concerned about the activity back there and not the
3:55pm
light. i don't want to see restriction. as long as there is no passage in there it's okay to let a little bit of light into the back of the restaurant. >> commissioner moore. >> i feel i need - in addition, not fact that the restaurant does not have any opening in the back you'll need some vent levitation. i don't know what exactly to solve the issues here
3:56pm
>> commissioner. >> i don't know bringing it back seems to effect just the restaurant part. and the upper level gains deck. the larger backyard i guess is what happens. but it seems like a minor you change. if we were to stick with the windows in the backyard were not operational, would that work >> except we'd have to have cleaning people be able to get
3:57pm
back there. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think what is issue that i sort of think of is there's no looikt in the back but there's restaurants that don't have lights in the back by they're open in the day. i'm for - i just want to make sure we don't have the additional noise in the back with addition to the restaurant noise there already. >> commissioners you do have a motion in the second that's on the floor. >> commissioner. >> i would say that even if we're requesting the windows to be fixed i will have to have
3:58pm
significant vents and equipment to move the air. i don't want to bring in noisy restaurant equipment. i happen to leave very near a restaurant and you're talking about the backyard being an issue. we should send the owner the applicant back and to listen to what we're saying and make a workable situation. that would mean we would support the application but one with
3:59pm
this additional workup. the party it the restaurant project it is extremely important but we're stuck on what is a reasonable deal closed in or whatever. let them take this back and look at this again and bring itself us the answer we're looking for. i don't see that all answers are here. we're not getting all the sibtd matters >> i would support that as well. >> and nobody has to come back and